Judgment No. 3185
Decision
1. The impugned decision of 12 March 2010 and the complainant's evaluation report (PMSDS) for the period from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 are set aside.
2. WIPO shall proceed as indicated in the judgment under 8.
3. It shall pay the complainant compensation in the amount of 8,000 euros under all heads.
4. It shall also pay her 4,000 euros in costs.
5. All other claims are dismissed.
Summary
The complainant successfully challenges her performance evaluation report, alleging personal prejudice and discrimination on the part of her direct supervisor.
Consideration 5(b)
Extract:
"In principle, a supervisor cannot be criticised for recording the mistakes and errors of a subordinate with a view to preparing that person’s periodical performance evaluation, provided that the purpose of that action is, on the one hand, to ensure that the rating will be objective and, on the other hand, to increase the service’s efficiency by improving the performance of the person concerned. In the instant case, however, it is plain from the evidence that this practice was consistently applied to the complainant in order to stigmatise her shortcomings. [...] Her [evaluation] report is thus tainted with a serious flaw which justifies that it be set aside".
Keywords
equal treatment; breach; work appraisal; performance report; rating; unsatisfactory service; supervisor; organisation's interest; flaw; purpose
Consideration 7(b)
Extract:
"The rule that administrative acts cannot apply retroactively [...] prevents an international organisation from altering definitively established legal situations, for example by calling into question an appraisal of service rendered during an evaluation period prior to the adoption of the new rules, as occurred in the instant case."
Keywords
non-retroactivity; organisation's duties; written rule; amendment to the rules; work appraisal; period
Judgment keywords
Keywords
complaint allowed; decision quashed; performance report; retroactivity
| 
